digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Meet Copowi, the world's first ISP to guarantee network neutrality

arstechnica.com — Copowi promises to be a new kind of ISP, one built on open-source principles and network neutrality guarantees. But it's not for cheapskates.

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 20, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

50 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • wjm0139, on 10/10/2007, -6/+32I want a neutral network as much as the next guy but.... This companies entire pitch is bull. They are still at the mercy of any other networks that packets will have to traverse to get to their destination. Sure they may not do any traffic shaping, and MAYBE they managed to negotiate something with the upstream providers they connect to directly, but if At&t, Level3 or any other backbone provider implements traffic shaping how is that still neutral?
    "But Matafonov is convinced that an untapped market niche exists in the US, a niche populated by those willing to pay a few bucks more for a neutral connection and an ISP with a conviction about the value of open-source ideas." - sounds like a tiered internet to me (exactly the opposite of the goal net neutrality is trying to achive).
    -b
  • wjm0139, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19I didn't like it, and didn't digg it. I just think they need to be fair when claiming that they are providing a neutral network to customers (which they are until the traffic leaves their network). You can believe that they are some kind of "grassroots organization" all you want, but the reality is they are a company - in business to make money. They are attempting to make money by using the popularity of the "network neutrality" debate.

    -b
  • Zaeyde, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I keep reading the company name as "Cowpie."
  • lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11This company just earned my business. ***** you, Comcast.
  • pseudo.hero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9"But it's not for cheapskates." Are you kidding me?? That's what Charter charges here for 5mb. Bring it here now!! (Wisconsin)
  • mocheeze, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Why does the exact provider of content matter for it to be about network neutrality? It doesn't matter whether it comes from YouTube's IP address or a BT peer's IP address. My ISP shouldn't have any control over the speeds as long as I'm not overusing the promised bandwidth that I payed for. The issue is the same, except there's nobody for our ISPs to extort money from like Google and eBay in BT swarms.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Net Neutrality aside... What is with the composited picture of the CEO over a Stock Photo office setting? Looks like crap! Bah.. sorry for the A.D.D.. it was just bugging the ***** out of me.

  • sdlvx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Has it occurred to these asshats that we should have faster internet, and our problems go away?

    They don't want to upgrade *****, so they just cut stuff out.
    http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/307084/31857.htm

    Look. This whole throttling thing is a load of *****. ***** ATT, ***** Verizon, ***** Comcast. They don't want to upgrade the rest of their ***** and keep up with the world, and instead want to just stop us from doing things to make up for it. It's all a bunch of profit driven *****.
  • Coded1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4ISP throttling occurs to limit your connection, this *is* necessary but only at the limit they are providing you. Example if an ISP can sell you a hard limit of 6Mbs and you can run it pegged then isn't that what you have bought? It's up to the ISP to divide what they have amongst its users, any overselling is called *gravy*. Wouldn't it be nice if your local car dealer could sell you a car and then sell it again to someone else to use it when your not driving it? I would get into the autoindustry today if that were the case, we could then get into cases where I could argue that your usage of the car is not as important then mine or some usage does not fall along the line of the EULA. The ISP's today know the limits and they sell them to you, packages all have a Mbs limit attached, a monthly limit in terms of how much data you can tx/rx for that price, just as their provider gives them the same. Why should they be able to conduct busines in the way they do? They use terms like unlimited, not because it is but because it looks pretty simple on their flyers, but as with all providers I have enountered that is never the case. The only way to clear the air and get these companies to get off their asses is for an ISP like this to sell in audio terms *RMS* level of service.

    When you buy speakers there are many that will tell you they are xWatts but you may only get that sound for a fraction of a second once a year, once you hear a speaker set that is measured in RMS it means it will deliver audio at that range day in and day out with out issues. With people providing this level of service even at a higer price there are many that will gladly pay for a true 6Mbps connection rather than the telco version of the same developing a connesure following. Now the question gets raised little by little, 'does your service include a *true* xMbps connection?' , 'does your service really include totally unlimited service?'.

    It is disgusting that these companies are able to get away with this garbage but it's startups like this that could endup chaning things.
  • spaulo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I noticed this too... frighteningly bad photoshop on top of a bad concept. Show us a pic of him in the company's actual offices... any office can be set up for a photo op to look cool and professional. This looks like something out of the Onion, done with less talent than their people.
  • msaghirmd, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12Lets all digg this thing. Imagine Verizon running the shots!!! Laptops wouldn't have drives or bluetooth so that all content would have to be downloaded from them for a price.
  • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Think batman otomonopia: Kapowie. As in, Kapow.
  • persept, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If only their 7Mbit line was available in California. In California they only have up to 3Mbit :(
    It's availible in Washington at least. Guess I'm gonna have to stay with Comcast a while longer.
  • jonesin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I'm sick of being throttled when using BT over my connection. Maybe it's not the perfect solution, but it's a start. I realize that the upstream networks could still throttle, but that's the case on any isp.
  • msaghirmd, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10First off, learn to read and write. Achive (sic). By the way jerk, this is the best a grassroots organization can do. They can't just buy up some of these million dollar networks. The higher tier services are reasonably priced. Perhaps with some subscription support they can have some purchasing power. This is the best an organization like this can do. IIf you don't like it, don't digg it.
  • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They're tapping various popularity streams with seemingly no hard commitment to any of them... net neutrality, open source, peer to peer, community, etcetera. A whole lot of talk but an overwhelming lack of substance.
  • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Just a few years ago, no one used throttling or traffic shaping. The internet was like that for years. I'm pretty sure we'd survive just fine if we went back to that.
  • b0rg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"In the US, the battle over network neutrality has captured the public imagination"

    Ironically, that's all it's captured. My internet connection works just fine, even though I use it to access services which directly compete with other offerings from my ISP. I'm not sure how rolling in the White House Office of Faith-Based Services and the geniuses from FEMA are going to improve things any.
  • Crosshare, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I just looked up what 7MB service would be here in CO. $60.00 a month. That's not bad compared to the $46 comcast is raping me for (3MB) without their crappy tv service.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3how..do you pronounce that?
  • bdpf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This not NN. It's a higher priced ISP, leaser that may offer faster speeds for the wealthy. The need for a better fiscal system still remains. "Leased lines + restrictions" We pay for the access over the network and get pinched off because they don't have the capacity. Just love be cut back to dial up speeds.
  • mocheeze, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Did you even read the article?
  • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Sign up to waste your money..... the moment a bunch of heavy p2p users get there you'll realise very quickly why isp's throttling p2p is a good thing.

    Except they're not actually able to provide network neutrality anyway because they lease off wholesale providers who they say may implement throttling on their leased lines anyway, and they state quite clearly you're not allowed to use their service to pirate. The only connection to opensource appears to be a free ubuntu cd, which is about the only thing you could use bittorrent to download within their terms of use.
  • Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That makes two of us.
  • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No chance, charter owns wisconsin.
  • RealmDown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Goin low fo fo
  • hummingbird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Even though a precise definition of net neutrality doesn't even exist, one of the key issues that comes up whenever it's discussed has to do with the neutral handling of different communication protocols. So at the very least, it's arguable that bittorrent does have something to do with net neutrality.
  • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I believe the premise is that, if one of their upstream providers behaves in a non-neutral fashion, that they will abandon that upstream provider for another.
  • gmurray, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If I ever find evidence of Comcast subverting my traffic I will switch with a clear reason and a letter to their customer service. If enough people do this it will make a difference. Helio was charging for YouTube for a while and everyone complained and they made it free again.
  • WNW3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1three :)
  • gharding, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Time to work on brand identity. Community Powered Internet? Lame. Drop that and stick with Copowi.
  • steamer25, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3OMG!!!! You mean there's a market solution????!!!!!! no wai
  • fry15, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you are in the UK check out www.ukfsn.org. They don't have any kind of traffic shaping, they don't tie you into any long term contracts and are very open about what they do. Plus they donate all profits to open source efforts!
  • sv650touring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean the state from which most of modern computing originates? Maybe it is a typo. Or they have a weird sense of humor.
  • texnofobix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Look this is true capitalism. We don't need the government regulating it.
  • fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Dugg for the name. It's just so catchy.
  • Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"In the US, the battle over network neutrality has captured the public imagination in a way that it has yet to do in Europe or Australia."
    Yeah, but Europeans (that does not include the UK yank-lap-dogs) are un-american socialist liberals so they don't have this problem !
    I have "net-work neutrality" at a speed of 6/6Mbit/s for less than $15 US a month .
    Heil Bush ..
  • s0rce7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2***** yea I'm switching to this ISP asap. ***** Verizon !!!
  • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Well not central to net neutrality, I agree with you in spirit. As the devils advocate, I guess the argument is Comast/Verizon/AT&T own the lines so they do care whats riding on them. When you sign a contract you agree to allow them to shape your network traffic and deny specific activities. While I hate this, I have hard time understanding how the government can tell Comcast/Verizon/whomever what they can do with their own networks...
  • Skeithy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'd pay the premium if that meant no slow downs or p2p throttling, but I don't see how they can guarantee it. I'd rather have a slower, reliable internet than one with a advertised with 10mbps but only a tenth of it can actually be used.
  • Shigglyboo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0THIS IS *****!! They're saying those prices are high? I pay $57.99 for ***** COMCAST!! and I get on average a 2.5 Mb connection. For less than that this company is offering twice the bandwidth!!!
    Also, Azureus usually is only able to get a combined total download bandwidth of 100-500 Kbps. I'm being throttled dammit and I'm paying too ***** much!!!!!! BUT THERE'S NO COMPETITION WHERE I LIVE!!
  • sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3who do you think they are reselling for? all you are doing by buying a line from them instead of getting it strait from version is giving more money to version (or at&t or what ever telco they are reselling lines for.
  • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1P2P throttling isn't just about the speed it's about the network resources you need to achieve that speed using P2P.

    Your car analogy's flawed. If you buy a car that takes up both lanes of a 2 lane road then you've got an approximate analogy, cause you're paying to use the road, and you're arguing that you should be able to use it all to the point where it impacts everyone else.
  • Swiftfeet8, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0I think for 1 day all ISP's should turn off their throttling and traffic-shaping. Hopefully then it would stop the argument over throttling P2P. I know it wouldn't stop the argument, but man that would be one crappy day.
  • Tobark, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Unless they ride on Comcasts backbone , which means you still get throttled on BT and in the wallet.
  • Alpione, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Interesting. Definitely a gimmick and certainly not a "grass-roots organization." Just remember that BitTorrent throttling, while lame, is NOT a "network neutrality" issue. It doesn't have anything to do with neutrality between content and bandwidth providers. It's just a traffic-shaping technology... Let's not get into a NN debate where everything from high taxes to global warming is attributed to lack of "network neutrality."
  • Hunterville, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0cowpoopii
  • saghirmo, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Hell yeah!!! Please support this site! Watch the video on youtube.com (linked from arstechnica). Give the video 5 stars. Sign up at copowi.com. Sign up to spread the buzz.
  • Hunterville, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0S-P-A-M
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6How obvious can the spam be?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.